Apple forms Braeburn investment firm to grow its cash
Apple Computer has formed a new company to manage its swelling cash reserves and short term investments, public documents have revealed.
According to a BusinessWeek report, Apple has incorporated Braeburn Capital, an asset management company based in Reno, Nevada and has placed "help wanted" ads, looking for financial officers to help the company grow its cash. They seek a senior and junior financial officer who would report to Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer and Apple's board on a quarterly basis.
The new company -- which is named after a variety of apple that's uniquely sweet and tart -- will be a vehicle for managing Apple's investment portfolio and wil help the company avoid certain California state taxes, according to the report.
By incorporating in Nevada, Apple reportedly hopes to shield itself from certain taxes imposed by the state of California.
"Apple's cash reserve has nearly doubled over the last two years. At the end of 2005, Apple had $8.7 billion in cash and short term investments, about 15 percent of its market capitalization," wrote BusinessWeek. "That's up 91 percent, from $4.6 billion, at the end of 2003. And it compares with much bigger rivals like Dell, which reported $9 billion in cash and short-term investments for the quarter ended February."
An Apple spokesman told the publication that Braeburn, a wholly-owned subidiary, will function as a regional treasury office, on par with existing offices in Cupertino, Singapore, and Cork, Ireland, but declined to comment on the tax implications or elaborate on Braeburn's investment plans.
According to a BusinessWeek report, Apple has incorporated Braeburn Capital, an asset management company based in Reno, Nevada and has placed "help wanted" ads, looking for financial officers to help the company grow its cash. They seek a senior and junior financial officer who would report to Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer and Apple's board on a quarterly basis.
The new company -- which is named after a variety of apple that's uniquely sweet and tart -- will be a vehicle for managing Apple's investment portfolio and wil help the company avoid certain California state taxes, according to the report.
By incorporating in Nevada, Apple reportedly hopes to shield itself from certain taxes imposed by the state of California.
"Apple's cash reserve has nearly doubled over the last two years. At the end of 2005, Apple had $8.7 billion in cash and short term investments, about 15 percent of its market capitalization," wrote BusinessWeek. "That's up 91 percent, from $4.6 billion, at the end of 2003. And it compares with much bigger rivals like Dell, which reported $9 billion in cash and short-term investments for the quarter ended February."
An Apple spokesman told the publication that Braeburn, a wholly-owned subidiary, will function as a regional treasury office, on par with existing offices in Cupertino, Singapore, and Cork, Ireland, but declined to comment on the tax implications or elaborate on Braeburn's investment plans.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
No coincidence that it's named after an Apple, since most of that cash will be going to Apple Corps pretty soon anyway.
So what's up with that whole crap trial? I haven't heard anything for about a week.
Originally posted by crees!
So what's up with that whole crap trial? I haven't heard anything for about a week.
Judgement is due sometime between Easter and the end of the month
Originally posted by ZO
where can I invest in it as well!?
You can't. This is private holding company. Kind of like a mutual fund that no one else can get into.
In 1984, Macintosh was a weird sounding name, so I am sure that we would have gotten used to working on Braeburns if that were the name used. I've tried Macintosh apples and I find that Braeburns are much better. (I wonder if Steve Jobs was aware of the Braeburn variety back in those days.)
Originally posted by macFanDave
That's my favorite variety of apple! In fact, if I were at the helm at Apple in the early 80's, we'd be working on Brae OS X now.
In 1984, Macintosh was a weird sounding name, so I am sure that we would have gotten used to working on Braeburns if that were the name used. I've tried Macintosh apples and I find that Braeburns are much better. (I wonder if Steve Jobs was aware of the Braeburn variety back in those days.)
When we run out of big cat names, maybe we should move onto Apple names then. Like Microsoft, we could have different versions of OSX for different users - Granny Smith would of course be aimed at the older generation.
Originally posted by crees!
So what's up with that whole crap trial? I haven't heard anything for about a week.
Arguments closed (yesterday, I think). Ruling expected Easter-ish.
One article I read yesterday mentioned something interesting.
Apple Corps. had been shown the iTMS 4-months before its debut and didn't complain at all about the logo/name then. Perhaps they didn't think it would be a success and now that it is...it is "worth" making a fuss about?
Who knows.
Originally posted by Cubert
Come on Apple, let's put some of that money into a HUGE advertising campaign for the Macintosh platform!
"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." -- John Wannamaker, U.S. department store merchant (1838 - 1922)
A sentiment that Apple (and others) perhaps consider before putting "some of that money into a HUGE advertising campaign".
Originally posted by Cubert
Come on Apple, let's put some of that money into a HUGE advertising campaign for the Macintosh platform!
Advertising dual boot would be smart.
Advertising virtualazaion would be a no-brainer.
That's a great idea.
Originally posted by BRussell
No coincidence that it's named after an Apple, since most of that cash will be going to Apple Corps pretty soon anyway.
Like hell it will.
But .. Russett ... Golden Delicious (lies!) ...
Originally posted by Quisling
You can't. This is private holding company. Kind of like a mutual fund that no one else can get into.
Not directly anyway. Apple shareholders also own a portion of that company and its assets as well.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Not directly anyway. Shareholders also own a portion of that company and its assets as well.
Yes! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside that I'm a billionaire, even if only indirectly.